The media in the UK have made much of US President's OBVIOUS two fingers to the ghastly Brown.WITHOUT DOUBT this is pay back for releasing the Lockerbie bomber....If I could Mr Obama,I would shake your hand!!
WHY does that man stay in office? He looks horrible! He appears to be in poor health and his eyesight is said to be failing. God man, give it up before the job kills you. He must know there's nothing he can do to redeem himself at this point. The briefer his tenure, the fewer bad things that can be said of him and the better for the country too.
I think it is quite amazing how the man's appearance and disability (blind in one eye from a rugby injury) are used as fuel in the debate as to whether he should stay in office or not. The guy inherited the shitstorm that the liar Blair led us into and is getting so much of the blame. I for one am greatful we didn't hit this recession in the hands of Cameron and the Boys' Club, but in the hands of a Prime Minister who is an economist backed up of course by his Chancellor, obviously another economist.
As far as the Lockerbie thing goes, the decision was apparently not that of Brown, but of our Scottish government. How true that is remains to be seen. What I will say though, is don't come telling us how to make our own legal decisions. Invasion isn't an option with us so kindly shut up and butt out.
As far as the Lockerbie thing goes, the decision was apparently not that of Brown, but of our Scottish government. How true that is remains to be seen. What I will say though, is don't come telling us how to make our own legal decisions. Invasion isn't an option with us so kindly shut up and butt out.
Don't have a chip on your shoulder. If we want a, "special relationship," then we 're going to see each other sitting on the toilet once in a while. America has a legitimate interest in the Lockerbie case as most of the people who were killed were Americans and so was the airline. When 9/11 happened I equally argued that all nations who lost citizens in the attack had an interest in seeing those responsible brought to justice. We do not live in a vacuum. It is the right and responsibility of the US, and every other nation who lost citizens in the attack, to find and capture or kill bin Laden and al Zawahiri and other conspirators. I have, and will continue, to criticize my government for not making that a priority.
Brown does not look healthy to me. His political legacy is toast so I'm merely commenting on the health of the performer, not the performance. There's no need to die for a role. He looks haggard to me. He stoops in public, he's grayer, and his eye bags have gotten bigger. On top of that his face appears a bit too bloated for his weight.
I don't give a rat's ass if he's blind in one eye or not nor was that the crux of my argument. I think you've misunderstood my post. The governor of my state, David Paterson, is legally blind and I've never said he should step down because of that even if Obama did just ask him not to run again. I'm referring to a report in The Telegraph, which stated:
Brown has denied that his eyesight is failing but then he's also denied other things, like the connection between the BP oil contract with Libya and the release of al-Megrahi which internal memos between Downing Street and Edinburgh along with public statements by Ghaddafi's son, have proven to be the case. Perhaps you've missed that bit of news?
From the December 19, 2007 memo from Straw to MacAskill:
MacAskill was pressured to release the man, found a general practitioner, not a urologist or oncologist, to agree with him, and signed the release on compassionate grounds. This despite the fact every previous appeal al-Megrahi made was lawfully denied. al-Megrahi was traded for oil. Simple as that.
I agree that Brown inherited a shitstorm from Blair and the world's economic governing bodies. What he has not done is improve the situation nor has he done anything about the horrendous PM spending abuses scandal. His parliament is stagnant and he's politically impotent now having just pissed-off the UK's most mportant ally.
Brown's legacy is already written. As I've said in previous posts I think the man should have dissolved parliament and called October elections. I even think it wouldn't have been wrong for the monarch to step-in and dissolve parliament herself in order to reboot the whole body and start over. The man can't even keep a cabinet. It's disgraceful.
Beyond all that, the toll that all this pressure is having on the PM's health is apparent given how everything has collapsed. If I were his friends and family, I'd be urging him to step-down if only because of that. At some point his loved ones have to be telling him that he'll literally bury himself if he continues and as much of a failure as a PM I and most of the UK and the world believes him to be, I don't want to see the man digging his own grave.
B_Enough_for_Me
Experimental Member
Couldn't have said it better.
If one was wondering why Brown is still in office they would have too look to the inevitable win by David Cameron.
Uh, no. The whole world (even the UK) has repeatedly voiced their opinion about how the US handles terrorists. We can chime in whenever we want.
Rugbypup
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Posts
- 3,128
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 198
- Points
- 283
- Location
- Wellington (New Zealand)
- Sexuality
- Unsure
- Gender
- Male
Brown 'stepped in' where Blair left off... I found that inherently wrong.
If Blair decided to leave then the UK should have gone over to a general election, not just passed power to Brown. I know many where left feeling Brown had stolen power in the UK without the right to do so.
His appearance isn't relevant though... well, maybe a little. You can't have an obese, walking, waiting heart attack as a health minister. If someone can do the job and do it well though, than they're the best person for the job.
Sadly, UK politics is taking a more American 'pageant' style approach to it in recent times. When the conservatives put John Major forward as leader, for example, he got so slapped by the media for being grey and dull, that suddenly he appears more 'tanned'. I find it tacky and a bit shite. I'm dreading the day the UK has the same style candidate campaigns as the USA.
Conversely, in NZ, if the PM is dragged on the main morning TV show to account for his actions at the drop of a hat, lol.
As for releasing the Lockerbie bomber... what the fuck... he should have been left to die in prison. Doesn't matter how you slice it, he was released for purely political reasons between the UK and Libya.
More oil anyone?
If Blair decided to leave then the UK should have gone over to a general election, not just passed power to Brown. I know many where left feeling Brown had stolen power in the UK without the right to do so.
His appearance isn't relevant though... well, maybe a little. You can't have an obese, walking, waiting heart attack as a health minister. If someone can do the job and do it well though, than they're the best person for the job.
Sadly, UK politics is taking a more American 'pageant' style approach to it in recent times. When the conservatives put John Major forward as leader, for example, he got so slapped by the media for being grey and dull, that suddenly he appears more 'tanned'. I find it tacky and a bit shite. I'm dreading the day the UK has the same style candidate campaigns as the USA.
Conversely, in NZ, if the PM is dragged on the main morning TV show to account for his actions at the drop of a hat, lol.
As for releasing the Lockerbie bomber... what the fuck... he should have been left to die in prison. Doesn't matter how you slice it, he was released for purely political reasons between the UK and Libya.
More oil anyone?
Ericsson1228d
Experimental Member
I just think we should "play nice" with our allies. It may help deflect some of the backlash, damage, and opportunism when our economy collapses. We should be nice to the few countries that still like us.
mitchymo
Expert Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2008
- Posts
- 4,131
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 100
- Points
- 133
- Location
- England (United Kingdom)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Ok, i can't stay silent on this.
A general election may have been the best approach but seriously which party is going to take it upon themselves to call for one at a time when public support is at its lowest, political suicide is not good politics. The best thing that ANY party can do in such a situation as a PM leaving mid-term is to install a new leader and try to build up support for a fairer election, unfortunately for Mr Brown and the Labour party he was the only really decent option, nobody else had a high enough stature and in-party respect.
It is probably near certain that Labour are about to get beaten in the next election and i honestly dread that happening because as dysfunctional as they are at the moment i would much rather see a Liberal Democrat government than a Conservative one, but that's just me personally.
I also want to address the issue about evidence pertaining to Al-megrahi's release being about oil. Everything is about oil is'nt it. So cynical.
The decision was a scottish decision and the interaction between the scots and the brits was to discuss the 'exclusion' of Al-Megrahi from the PT Agreement because the US and Scottish government had an understanding that he would not be released.
Libya disliked the exclusion because a) an agreement in fairness should not seek to add exceptions (especially when only 1 libyan national was behind bars here) but instead be a simple agreement. Whilst this may be tied into the deal over oil it in no way was inferred that Al-megrahi would be released because it was NOT in the hands of the UK government. Libya would have had to deal with Scotland to get their man released as part of any deal.
The Scottish government released him on compassionate grounds in accordance with strict guidelines on compassionate release within the confines of Scottish law.
Whilst there is great scepticism that the UK was perhaps duplicitous in its dealings with Libya the majority of people across the political spectrum have little to no doubt that the decision was based on Scottish law and that alone.
Yes it is true that perhaps the wool has been pulled over our eyes or perhaps disgust for the end result of Al-Megrahi's claim for compassionate release has so enraged some people that they are linking it to trade agreements as a conspiracy.
The whole snubbing thing, well i don't really know the truth of it suffice to say it is a childish act, is that something to look forward to in the future, US disagrees so has a hissy-fit? If this is response to a 'closest ally' is it any wonder that foreign relations are so bad.
A general election may have been the best approach but seriously which party is going to take it upon themselves to call for one at a time when public support is at its lowest, political suicide is not good politics. The best thing that ANY party can do in such a situation as a PM leaving mid-term is to install a new leader and try to build up support for a fairer election, unfortunately for Mr Brown and the Labour party he was the only really decent option, nobody else had a high enough stature and in-party respect.
It is probably near certain that Labour are about to get beaten in the next election and i honestly dread that happening because as dysfunctional as they are at the moment i would much rather see a Liberal Democrat government than a Conservative one, but that's just me personally.
I also want to address the issue about evidence pertaining to Al-megrahi's release being about oil. Everything is about oil is'nt it. So cynical.
The decision was a scottish decision and the interaction between the scots and the brits was to discuss the 'exclusion' of Al-Megrahi from the PT Agreement because the US and Scottish government had an understanding that he would not be released.
Libya disliked the exclusion because a) an agreement in fairness should not seek to add exceptions (especially when only 1 libyan national was behind bars here) but instead be a simple agreement. Whilst this may be tied into the deal over oil it in no way was inferred that Al-megrahi would be released because it was NOT in the hands of the UK government. Libya would have had to deal with Scotland to get their man released as part of any deal.
The Scottish government released him on compassionate grounds in accordance with strict guidelines on compassionate release within the confines of Scottish law.
Whilst there is great scepticism that the UK was perhaps duplicitous in its dealings with Libya the majority of people across the political spectrum have little to no doubt that the decision was based on Scottish law and that alone.
Yes it is true that perhaps the wool has been pulled over our eyes or perhaps disgust for the end result of Al-Megrahi's claim for compassionate release has so enraged some people that they are linking it to trade agreements as a conspiracy.
The whole snubbing thing, well i don't really know the truth of it suffice to say it is a childish act, is that something to look forward to in the future, US disagrees so has a hissy-fit? If this is response to a 'closest ally' is it any wonder that foreign relations are so bad.
Do you honestly and earnestly believe that if Whitehall doesn't say, "jump for the good of the nation," as Jack Straw did, that Edinburgh wouldn't ask, "how high?" as MacAskill did? The fact is that final power resides in Whitehall and there it will stay. Jack Straw asked for release to seal the deal and got it. I don't see what's so unclear about it. MacAskill used a legitimate tool of law to get that release so at most, what was done was unethical if not illegal. It stinks but it bought enough oil to keep Top Gear in production and that's really all I care about.
Neither the US nor the UK can't change its geography beyond returning some colonies to their original owners, so for now anyway, the US and the UK are married and will stay such. For now it will be tit for tat until Brown is shown the door and then we'll make-up and play nice until the next time one pisses off the other by acting in its own selfish interest at the expense of the other. In the end, it's all just a spat.
Neither the US nor the UK can't change its geography beyond returning some colonies to their original owners, so for now anyway, the US and the UK are married and will stay such. For now it will be tit for tat until Brown is shown the door and then we'll make-up and play nice until the next time one pisses off the other by acting in its own selfish interest at the expense of the other. In the end, it's all just a spat.
mitchymo
Expert Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2008
- Posts
- 4,131
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 100
- Points
- 133
- Location
- England (United Kingdom)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Well the 'story' from both the UK and Scotland is the same, the voices of all key players involved in both Al-Megrahi's appeal and trade negotiations with Libya are backing them up. The only 'real' case for doubt is based on the Libyan prince claiming it was a done deal and a piece of text which was released in a transparent act which reveals that discussions were held where Al-Megrahi's name were mentioned in relation to Libyan desire not to have his name excluded from any PT agreement. There is no evidence to substantiate claims that the whole thing is a conspiracy to get hands on oil any more than there is to refute a claim that the trade agreement is a part of improving foreign relations.
And actually i think you underestimate the Scots, they have a very strong will of their own and they do not like being told what to do and they have their own government and their own laws. Nobody is dwelling on the issue over here anymore because nobody seriously doubts who ultimately held the strings, it was Scotland as they, the UK government and shadow government and trade representatives all agree.
On another note, is anyone sick of the media whipping up these 'perceived snubs' all the time, that no-one's arsed about?
The US must think we're a right bunch of moaning, miserable twits.
The US must think we're a right bunch of moaning, miserable twits.
Rugbypup
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Posts
- 3,128
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 198
- Points
- 283
- Location
- Wellington (New Zealand)
- Sexuality
- Unsure
- Gender
- Male
Hate to point this out, but the Scots are the Brits!
As are the Welsh and Northern Irish.
There are four nations to the united kingdom of great Britain. England, N. Irland, Scotland and Wales. Consequently, they are all British, not just the English, whether the Scots, Welsh or N.Irish like it or not, they are British to.
I think what you meant was the Scots and the English? Or at least the Scots Vs. the rest of Britain.
Last edited:
Rugbypup
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Posts
- 3,128
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 198
- Points
- 283
- Location
- Wellington (New Zealand)
- Sexuality
- Unsure
- Gender
- Male
Again, Scotland IS the UK.
You meant Scotland and England... or both the rest of Britain and Scotland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2004
- Posts
- 15,642
- Media
- 62
- Likes
- 5,043
- Points
- 433
- Location
- London (Greater London, England)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Obama made a political decision to snub Brown. I guess it has played well in the US. In Britain it is perceived by many less as a slight by the US than as further evidence that Brown is not up for the job. If Obama really wants to ensure a change of government in the UK he needs to be photographed shaking Cameron's hand. I know the Democrats have traditionally favoured the British socialists (Labour), but the world has moved on and I think the attitudes and policies of US Democrats and UK Conservatives are in fact very similar. In UK terms the Republicans are way to the right.
The release of the Lockerbie bomber has filled up pages of newspaper for weeks. Two points I have found which give food for thought are:
* Is the guy actually guilty? With such a high profile case I'm sure government researchers would have made an assessment of the probable outcome of his appeal, and I think it posible that they reached the view either that he is not guilty, or that there is substantial doubt around his conviction. If he's not guilty I think getting him released makes sense. If he had not withdrawn his appeal it would have continued even after his death - but prior to his release he formally dropped his appeal. Whatever he now publishes through the press lacks the impact of a judicial process.
* The idea that this is solely a Scottish decision is misleading. The Scottish system made a decision on the basis of the materials presented, and the UK government decided not to make a submission. Once released from a Scottish gaol the decision to allow him out of the UK was a UK government decision, as the borders of the whole of the UK are under UK government control. He could have been refused the right to leave and perhaps tried in an English court for something or other (the plane took off from England).
Brown probably should have called an election after he was made Labour party leader in order to give his government legitimacy. Probably he would have won it. But he didn't, and now there is a legitimacy defecit, which Obama's snub has demonstrated. I think America could have accepted the release of the Lockerbie terrorist if they felt Brown was going to be in power. Instead we have the dregs of a tired government. It would help Britain if he would call an election so that we have a government that has proper respect overseas.
The release of the Lockerbie bomber has filled up pages of newspaper for weeks. Two points I have found which give food for thought are:
* Is the guy actually guilty? With such a high profile case I'm sure government researchers would have made an assessment of the probable outcome of his appeal, and I think it posible that they reached the view either that he is not guilty, or that there is substantial doubt around his conviction. If he's not guilty I think getting him released makes sense. If he had not withdrawn his appeal it would have continued even after his death - but prior to his release he formally dropped his appeal. Whatever he now publishes through the press lacks the impact of a judicial process.
* The idea that this is solely a Scottish decision is misleading. The Scottish system made a decision on the basis of the materials presented, and the UK government decided not to make a submission. Once released from a Scottish gaol the decision to allow him out of the UK was a UK government decision, as the borders of the whole of the UK are under UK government control. He could have been refused the right to leave and perhaps tried in an English court for something or other (the plane took off from England).
Brown probably should have called an election after he was made Labour party leader in order to give his government legitimacy. Probably he would have won it. But he didn't, and now there is a legitimacy defecit, which Obama's snub has demonstrated. I think America could have accepted the release of the Lockerbie terrorist if they felt Brown was going to be in power. Instead we have the dregs of a tired government. It would help Britain if he would call an election so that we have a government that has proper respect overseas.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2004
- Posts
- 15,642
- Media
- 62
- Likes
- 5,043
- Points
- 433
- Location
- London (Greater London, England)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
England
England+Wales=Britain (English law in both however as Wales is a principality not a kingdom)
England+Wales+Scotland=Great Britain
England+Wales+Scotland+NI=UK These four are the Home Countries.
The British Dependent Territories of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man are independent territories though closely linked with the UK.
UK+Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man + Irish Republic = British Isles. At present this is a geographical entity rather than a political entity.
In colloquial usage Britain means the UK, though the more restrictive usse is purely England+Wales. People seem a little self concious about the great in Great Britain. People living anywhere in the UK are British (the adjective is British).
Most people feel an allegiance both to their country and to the UK.
SpeedoGuy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2004
- Posts
- 4,166
- Media
- 7
- Likes
- 41
- Points
- 258
- Age
- 60
- Location
- Pacific Northwest, USA
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I think he should have rotted in prison as well. The release was inexplicable and astonishing to me. Further, official explanations ever since appear insultingly circular and ambiguous.
I'm intrigued to observe so plainly that subterfuge related to oil is not only the province of the US government.
I think it's terrible that Cornwall isn't recognized as a separate entity. The people of Cornwall should be recognized as a nation separate and distinct from England.
Long Live Kernow!
Good luck with that.
Long Live Kernow!
Good luck with that.
I'm in two minds about the Lockerbie bomber - I do agree with having mercy on people, especially if they're terminally ill. But he's convicted of blowing 200 or so other people out of the sky. Do you just forget about that or not??
That's assuming he is guilty, of course - but if the authorities are seriously concerned about an unsafe conviction, then they should let him out or re-try him on those grounds instead.
Also, my stomach for letting people off because they're terminally ill, is slightly tarnished by the sight of Train Robber Ronnie Biggs trundling round town happily, after he was let out for supposedly being at death's door. Hmmm.
That's assuming he is guilty, of course - but if the authorities are seriously concerned about an unsafe conviction, then they should let him out or re-try him on those grounds instead.
Also, my stomach for letting people off because they're terminally ill, is slightly tarnished by the sight of Train Robber Ronnie Biggs trundling round town happily, after he was let out for supposedly being at death's door. Hmmm.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2004
- Posts
- 15,642
- Media
- 62
- Likes
- 5,043
- Points
- 433
- Location
- London (Greater London, England)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
The Megrahi release has demonstrated to everyone in Britain that Scotland has significant powers. While the principle is that the UK is responsible for foreign policy this major foreign policy row has been created in Scotland, and with the UK government saying it is powerless to act.
Nationalism is an important feature in UK politics. The Scottish parliament is run by nationalists (the SNP), while in Wales there is substantial support for the Welsh nationalists. In Northern Ireland all political groups in effect define themselves on their response for or against Irish nationalism. Further afield the Irish parliament is dominated by parties which emerged from their struggle for independence and which are in effect nationalist parties. Even England has a (small) nationalist party.
Nationalist groups run the spectrum from respectable politicians to terrorists. In some areas nationalism is inevitable, but it seems it is never comfortable. In Northern Ireland it has caused a lot of misery; in Wales there have been some serious problems. What seems to me to be beyond defense is the effort to whip up nationalist sentiment where none previously existed. In Cornwall (which is a county of England) there is a pressure group which seeks Cornish independence on the basis of a spurious claim to a unique constitutional status and a reading of the county's ancient and mediaeval history which stresses differences with other counties of England. At the moment they are fringe nut cases, but there is a (small) possibility that they might let the nationalist genie out of the bottle, to the misery of the people of Cornwall. There's also a group calling for the independence of Shetland.
I don't think there is anything comparable in US politics, and my impression is that most Americans haven't got their head around the nationalist dimension in the Megrahi release. My own view is that Brown could and should have done more, but there is a degree of truth in his assertion that it is a Scottish decision not a UK decision.
Nationalism is an important feature in UK politics. The Scottish parliament is run by nationalists (the SNP), while in Wales there is substantial support for the Welsh nationalists. In Northern Ireland all political groups in effect define themselves on their response for or against Irish nationalism. Further afield the Irish parliament is dominated by parties which emerged from their struggle for independence and which are in effect nationalist parties. Even England has a (small) nationalist party.
Nationalist groups run the spectrum from respectable politicians to terrorists. In some areas nationalism is inevitable, but it seems it is never comfortable. In Northern Ireland it has caused a lot of misery; in Wales there have been some serious problems. What seems to me to be beyond defense is the effort to whip up nationalist sentiment where none previously existed. In Cornwall (which is a county of England) there is a pressure group which seeks Cornish independence on the basis of a spurious claim to a unique constitutional status and a reading of the county's ancient and mediaeval history which stresses differences with other counties of England. At the moment they are fringe nut cases, but there is a (small) possibility that they might let the nationalist genie out of the bottle, to the misery of the people of Cornwall. There's also a group calling for the independence of Shetland.
I don't think there is anything comparable in US politics, and my impression is that most Americans haven't got their head around the nationalist dimension in the Megrahi release. My own view is that Brown could and should have done more, but there is a degree of truth in his assertion that it is a Scottish decision not a UK decision.
